Democratic Primaries 4/26: Exit Poll anomalies (continued)

27Apr

Richard Charnin
April 27, 2016 (updated May 26)

There were three exit polls yesterday in CT, MD, PA. Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in two of the three elections. As usual, the exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote.
The difference between Clinton’s adjusted exit poll and recorded share were:
CT 0.01%; MD 0.10%; PA -0.17%

In 21 of 23 primaries, Sander’s exit poll share exceeded his recorded share.
The probability of this being due to chance:
P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true)

In 9 of 23 primaries, Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error. The probability of this being due to chance:
P = 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23, 0.025, true)

The pollsters ALWAYS force the unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote. Where are the unadjusted exit polls? The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) discusses the matching process in Explaining Exit Polls.

In close races, the projection models also employ actual vote totals, first in sample precincts as it becomes available and then at the county level for all counties in a state as they become available. It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did.

Note: It’s not just in close races. Unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote in ALL races. The pollsters need to provide the actual exit poll respondent data for all precincts. They need to provide the data and then explain the rationale for making the adjustments to match the vote. But they won’t. Ask yourself WHY?

The AAPOR never mentions election fraud as a likely cause of the discrepancies. In actuality all of the adjusted exit poll crosstabs contaminate the true statistical results and are misleading as they do not reflect the the actual responses of those exit polled.

Exit pollsters at Edison Research should not be making adjustments. But it is standard operating procedure. It is unscientific and hides the actual exit poll results. It serves to cover-up the fraud which is measured by the recorded vote discrepancy .

THE CONNECTICUT EXIT POLLHow did Sanders early poll drop from 55% to 47%? It would be nice to know how many were polled at this point. According to Edison Research, about 2/3 of the total polled (1223).

The MoE for 815 respondents is 4.5%. For 1223, it is 3.6%. So Sanders exit poll dropped by 8%, far above the 4.5% MoE.

Should we add CT to the list of 11 of 26 exit polls which exceeded the MoE for Sanders? The 1 in 77 billion probability would become 1 in 2.4 TRILLION.

“Edison Research exit poll interviewers call in exit poll results three times during election day – once in the late morning, once in the mid-afternoon, and once shortly before the polls close in a state. The exit poll data that is released at 5PM to the news organizations comprising the National Election Pool (NEP members are ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press) and any other news organizations subscribing to the exit poll include about two-thirds of the interviews that will be conducted on an election day. The exit poll results that are released around poll closing include nearly all of the voter interviews that are conducted during election day.”

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Has anyone done any research into Edison? They don’t have a Wikipedia page, and the only thing I can find about Mitofsky says he refused to release the actual numbers for the 2000 General election, which makes me suspicious of the whole enterprise.

Is it possible to obtain the unadjusted exit polls by contacting CNN or other news networks? I thought it was odd that they simply said “our exit polls tell us it’s too close to call” in all states but Maryland (for Dems), but they didn’t show the actual percentages for their exit polls like they usually do. I wonder if they’ve caught on to the problems that you and others are raising concerning the consistent anomalies in Hillary’s favor.

Have you seen this yet, Richard? Rawstory has a story about you and others, and the author and rawstory are shilling for the abusive right-wing owned evidence-free e-voting/e-scanning machines which in the first place necessitated the strategy of analyzing exit polling – unajusted – to try to check a system with no evidence or hidden evidence.

On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet

We need to prove our Democracy. It is that simple.

Instead, the msm accepts the removal and hiding of real evidence (paper ballots hand counted in public and posted in precinct on election night, or as with caucuses the public evidence of a open hand/head count) as a perfectly good standard…without proof.

Here is the strongest evidence in support of Richard’s statistical analysis which cannot be explained in any way other than fraud and theft by the political party leaders:

31% in 22 Primaries
(with removed or hidden evidence by e-voting, e-scanning machines owned by the right, selecting the right-most candidates in both parties)

MSM is okay with no evidence. You know exactly why. It is time to Prove Our Democracy. If you support a democracy, that is no problem. If you do not support a democracy that is a big, YUUUUGH problem for the powers that what to force their control over all of us and the world.

Hopefully this is not a repeat. But, I had a typo in my first post that I want to correct.

This is the ultimate proof of election fraud that Richard has been warning all people about so that we could save our democracy finally, this time during this primary, in order to get better leaders who will save our future economy, jobs, health, education, climate, and perhaps even our species:

41% in 22 Primaries
(my note: Primaries DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE. Real evidence is removed by e-voting machines, and hidden by e-scanning machines owned by the extreme right to control our fates, and given the seal of approval by the bought off media)

PROVE OUR DEMOCRACY NOW during these primaries and caucuses. Media should support evidence if they support democracy. It looks to the world, that the media do not support democracy, preferring the fraud of NO EVIDENCE instead.

Richard, did you see the following article that is about you and some other election integrity people?
It is a doozy, that supports NO EVIDENCE in elections, and does not support the only INDIRECT EVIDENCE available to try to double check results and report on this YUUUUUUGE problem for an accountable democracy.

On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis. Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

After the New York primary, which was a total mess, Charnin sent an email to his list with a detailed statistical analysis based on the assumption that 5 percent of New York voters had been disenfranchised, and that 75 percent of them would have voted for Sanders if they’d had the chance. Given that pre-election polls showed Clinton leading the state by 13.5 percent — and that New York City, where the biggest irregularities occurred, was a Clinton stronghold — this is what statisticians call “pulling an assumption out of your ass.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

more
……………

Americans know that our political system is completely rotten. Just two days ago, NBC News published the results of a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. It found the following:

New York Does Elections Like It Does Wall Street: With Its Finger on the Scale
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 20, 2016

Consistent with numerous other polls, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also found that “just 19 percent of all respondents give Clinton high marks for being honest and trustworthy.”

So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street.
……….

41% in 22 Primaries
(my note: Primaries DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE. Real evidence is removed by e-voting machines, and hidden by e-scanning machines owned by the extreme right to control our fates, and given the seal of approval by the bought off media)
……….

Another correction: Some Precincts, some Counties that have Primaries do not use e-voting, e-scanning machines, but rather the real evidence of hand-counted paper ballots, counted and posted in precinct on election night. In those precincts, there is the same divergence in numbers: with evidence, Bernie has higher numbers; without evidence, Hillary has higher numbers. Demand evidence, always. Now.
……….

And, you have to take into account the abusive right who own those machines:

Here is the article that informed me of Sibel Edmonds reporting on and goal of removing these criminals, and their crimes against the state and crimes against children, from government to create a better future for kids and for our nation.

Still Evil after All These Years: The Franklin Scandal and Pedophilia in High Places
By Charles M. Young Posted by Dave Lindorff

The Omaha World-Herald was the foremost local cheerleader for persecuting teenagers instead of investigating their claims. One of its own columnists, Peter Citron, had a long history of arrests for pedophilia and child porn and was implicated by two witnesses at Larry King’s sex parties. The long-time publisher of the World-Herald, Harold Anderson, was a big supporter of Larry King and had raised money for the Franklin. During the 18 years that King presided over the Franklin, the newspaper never noticed that King was living a hugely expensive lifestyle when he was supposedly making $17,000 a year in salary. The World-Herald Company is co-owner of Election Software and Systems (also known as ES & S and associated with Diebold and more), which counts half the election ballots in the United States.

Americans have plenty of obvious reasons to hate the rich and powerful. Wars for oil, rampant pollution, the destruction of individual rights, the constant lying about everything. It’s all on the front page, and it’s like old furniture in the living room. It’s hard for most people to notice. Boutique evil of the Gerry Sandusky sort affects fewer victims, but is more easily understood once the initial denial breaks down. If the denial of the Franklin Credit Union scandal ever breaks down, the consequences will reverberate far higher than happened at Penn State. Except for all those who died in suspicious accidents and suicides, the witnesses are still out there. Some might even talk about it. They talked to Nick Bryant.
……….

FRANKLIN SCANDAL: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal
by Nick Bryant

The FRANKLIN SCANDAL is the story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful. The ring’s pimps were a pair of political powerbrokers who had access to the highest levels of our government. Nebraska legislators attempted to expose the network in 1989 and 1990, but the legislators’ efforts were followed by a rash of mysterious deaths and the overpowering responses of federal and local law enforcement, including the FBI and Justice Department, which effected an immaculate cover-up of the trafficking network.

The publisher is donating 50% of the book’s proceeds to organizations that assist abused children.
………….

The above article shows how convicted criminal former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert could ever be elected to the third highest office in the U.S. and head a sub committee on protecting children….

Hastert was sentenced today. Yesterday boingboing had an article that was disgusting, and shows how important our efforts are to try to save democracy and to try to save kids.

In comments: I posted a link to election mathematician/statistician Richard Charnin’s article to above site because it shows how Illinois, the home state of Dennis Hastert, has a 74.3% probability of having been stolen from Bernie Sanders, and from voters, to a commenter’s article, The GOP’s new plan for voter suppression (my note: it is not just the GOP) at the Chicago Cubs site, because kids have always thought of baseball players as heroes, and many people now urgently need to save kids and democracy.
………

Get rid of HAVA the subversively named Help America Vote Act which put many more of those evidence removed/hidden e-voting, e-scanning machines in our voting process. Who put that in place? Another convicted criminal Jack Abramoff was the lobbyist who got/blackmailed politicians to adopt that law and those machines.

This is difficult but necessary to know to get rid of HAVA and to save kids and democracy itself. I thought I should quote Stew Webb’s research. Stew Webb was a whistleblower that helped in the charges brought against the frauds at Silverado, HUD, and other cases. He has already proved himself brave. He needs a proofreader as he suffered injuries from being run off the road three times and believes angels helped him survive:

Out of the DC Hilton, Ritz Carlton, Sheraton Hotels, Little Boys and Girls for Military and Defense Contracts, Congressman, Senators, Media and others Blackmailed
By Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist

This is a story of the U.S. Shadow Government tied to Organized Crime, Foreign intelligence, current and retired FBI Trolls and stooges and how they have Blackmailed, Imprisoned, Murdered, defamed and tried to destroyed their reputations, those who have exposed their crimes or got in their way.

U.S. senators and congressmen are covering up the Dusty Foggo government lobbyist and military prostitution and pedophilia ring in Washington involving legislators, news reporters, military officers and high government officials. Alberto Gonzales and President Bush fired San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam because she was probing the Dusty Foggo / Jack Abramoff D.C. sex ring.

Is child sex and prostitution in exchange for defense contracts and votes for war too explosive for the American people to hear?
………..

Who owns Scytl? George Soros isn’t in the voting machines, but the intelligence community is
by Gerry Bello

Our research did find links much more frightening.In 2010, Scytl purchased a 100% interest in SOE software, an up and coming player in the American elections market with their Clarity Software Suite which is used in 525 jurisdictions in 19 states. SOE has a strategic partnership with ES & S, the major marketer of electronic voting systems in the US. ES & S was sued by the US DOJ in 2009 on anti-trust grounds after purchasing Diebold’s elections division, Premier Election Solutions. ES & S subsequently sold Premier to rival manufacturer Dominion. Bob Urosevich, founder of ES & S, was also President of Diebold. In 2006 Urosevich was listed as managing director of Scytl Americas, although his name has subsequently been removed from their website.
………..

There is no transparency to our current voting system. Congress has legalized election fraud by allowing, if not mandating, non-transparent voting systems that prohibit direct access to a paper ballot and meaningful public oversight

Making matters worse, our public voting system has been privatized and outsourced to a handful of domestic, foreign, and multi-national corporations, most of whom have close ties to the right wing of the Republican Party. Just two companies, ES&S and Diebold, started by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich, electronically process (using touchscreen machines or optical scanners), 80% of all votes. Their employees are in a perfect position to rig elections nation-wide. And evidence is mounting that elections in America have been computer programmed to prefer conservative candidates of both political parties.
………..

If you were looking for a primer on election theft, here’s the video for you.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast, gave a talk at actor and activist Mimi Kennedy’s home, where he laid out 16 years of vote theft history. From his first investigation into voter suppression during the 2000 election, Palast moves election by election explaining the evolution of how the vote is stolen.

It’s an excellent set-up for the upcoming release of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits.

For 15 years, Greg Palast has been uncovering voter suppression tactics in investigative reports for BBC Television, The Guardian, Harper’s and Rolling Stone.

Later this year, Greg Palast will be releasing his new feature film The Best Democracy Money Can Buy—A Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits, which includes his award-winning investigation Jim Crow Returns.

Update from whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her current NEWSBUD fundraiser to create a coalition of journalists to report on with the purpose of removing egregious politicians and their crimes against children and crimes against the state for a better future. Please help her now if you can:

Support a 100% People-Funded Online News Outlet, Phase 1

This project will only be funded if at least $150,000 is pledged by Wed, Jun 22 2016 1:03 AM CDT.
…………..

Here is the article that informed me of Sibel Edmonds reporting on and goal of removing these criminals, and their crimes against the state and crimes against children, from government to create a better future for kids and for our nation. How else could a person as criminal and blackmailable as former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert ever get elected to the third highest office in the U.S. and also head up a subcommittee on protecting children. Who owns those evidence-removed voting machines?

Who owns Scytl? George Soros isn’t in the voting machines, but the intelligence community is
by Gerry Bello

Our research did find links much more frightening. In 2010, Scytl purchased a 100% interest in SOE software, an up and coming player in the American elections market with their Clarity Software Suite which is used in 525 jurisdictions in 19 states. SOE has a strategic partnership with ES & S, the major marketer of electronic voting systems in the US. ES & S was sued by the US DOJ in 2009 on anti-trust grounds after purchasing Diebold’s elections division, Premier Election Solutions. ES & S subsequently sold Premier to rival manufacturer Dominion. Bob Urosevich, founder of ES & S, was also President of Diebold. In 2006 Urosevich was listed as managing director of Scytl Americas, although his name has subsequently been removed from their website.
……

And, now new evidence found by Bev Harris implicating the same voting machine companies as above. Bev Harris’s real evidence corroborates and confirms Richard Charnin’s work: Get Rid of Those Voting Machines.

Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
By Bev Harris May 12, 2016

1 – Summary – This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, (upcoming) California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.

Cindy

April 27, 2016 at 8:37 pm

A pastor/reporter contacted Edison for a story he was writing on this and they never called back…. I’ll see if I can find it. I’d love to get a look at their contract!

A wonderful interview of Richard Charnin if you ever wondered what his voice sounded like (honest is what it sounds like to me). There are two topics and two interviews, both worth listening to. Richard’s talk beings at 27 minutes, 27 seconds:

Solartopia Green Power and Wellness Hour – 03.10.16
Posted on March 10, 2016 by Jason in Green Power And Wellness

MAJOR DEFECT AT 98 OF 99 US NUKES revealed by 7 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission experts. The “NRC7” has filed a rare public report warning that the electrical defect threatens the safety of virtually all US nukes. We talk about it with the great DAVID LOCHBAUM of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The “regulatory” agency responsible for our safety has ignored this for years.

at 27:27
We then ask statistician RICHARD CHARNIN whether Bernie Sanders was in fact the rightful winner of the Massachusetts Primary. We’re joined by BOB FITRAKIS to investigate a key primary which, if Bernie had been given credit for it, would’ve shifted the entire race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. According to Charnin, the evidence is pretty clear the Bernie was, in fact, the victor, a shocking conclusion that casts doubt on the entire electoral process.

In incorrectly assume a probability of 50%. Changes in votes are not random events, so the probability should not be selected to be 50%. Many things other than voter fraud can cause discrepancies, not least of which are exit poll respondents who refuse to participate or falsely report their vote.

Exit poll participants for each candidate who refuse to participate would be expected to cancel each other out.
The same goes for those who would falsely report their vote.
Do you have any evidence of either of the above canards?
The two myths have been refuted as inconsequential.
The reluctant Bush responder (rBr) theory was debunked in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data.
And the myth is perpetuated every time by so-called exit poll naysayers.

“Exit poll participants for each candidate who refuse to participate would be expected to cancel each other out.” This isn’t true at all. This is only true if the propensity to refuse or lie is similar among candidates. This isn’t the case and there is a long history of differential refusals between a candidate’s supporters — especially those most distrustful of the government (like Bernie supporters). Public Opinion Quarterly and the Journal of Official Statistics is chalked full of articles that show a 50% assumption is not a valid one.

Amanda

May 3, 2016 at 3:28 pm

Hi Richard,
First I want to thank you for sharing these ideas with the world. They’re picking up steam. Secondly, as they are picking up steam, they’re picking up criticism, and I was hoping you could help me debunk some of the criticism I’ve received when discussing the chart on this page.

I was told the numbers used in your chart are the “early numbers.” Is it pure, raw data or has it been adjusted to account for non-response bias (i.e. there are more young folks (likely Sanders supporters) filling out the survey)?

They are not early numbers. The numbers are as of closing. They had not yet been adjusted to match the recorded vote.
Joe Lenski of Edison Research admits that the exit polls are are adjusted during the day as the vote come in.

Exit polls are conducted at the polling site.
Voting by mail in the primaries has been highly suspect in a number of primaries.
There is no reason why Clinton should do so much better (25%+) in VBM.
Was there ballot stuffing?

I don’t know about other states, but I don’t see how ballot stuffing could happen in vote by mail in Florida. There is an inner envelope that contains the actual vote, and this is placed in an outer envelope that the voter signs across the line where this envelope gets opened. You would need thousands of fake inner envelopes with the votes you want, and you would need to do the swap on Election Day when the votes get counted, and when the elections office is very busy with a lot of people there, poll watchers from both (or more) sides, and possibly cameras. You would need to time it just right so the swap happens after the outer envelopes get opened and before the inner envelopes get opened – and you had better not get caught! You would need to do this in all counting places across the state. I just don’t see anyone doing this. The same resources would be better spent actually campaigning.

Please do everything you can to get people to by mail using the Florida system.

austrogirl

May 3, 2016 at 9:45 pm

I have a feeling you would see even more election fraud in early Republican primaries than even the Democratic ones based on some bizarre facts, such as that JEB had $150MM of superpac money to Trump’s zero yet JEB went backwards and Trump crushed it, also Trump got 25 times the coverage by CNN of all other GOP candidates combined (just to name two–here are more–https://themonicaperezshow.com/2016/02/24/trump-spends-zero-is-crushing-it-heres-why/)…if the game is to get Hilary elected, controlling who she’s up against in the general would be a must…I’m not saying no one likes Trump, I’m just saying that it looked to me that there was lots of funny business afoot to get him his momentum and I bet you of all people could find it, especially in the early GOP primary contests…

I don’t blame you – it’s a circus that even I’ve washed my hands of! As for my blog, our politics don’t match (I’m a hardcore libertarian), but I think these desperate times rise above ideology – I for one am grateful to find any honest person pursuing the truth!

You should not assume that our politics don’t match. I am no longer a Democrat. I am an independent. I worked for conservative defense, banking and industrial corporations.
I support Bernie. What is the alternative? Only Jill Stein.

Anybody here in Florida? I know of a candidate, Ronson Biedrzychi, who is now listed on my website: http://www.ntbprog.org/candidates.html, who’s main issue is getting money out of politics. As it turned out, he was unable to get enough signatures to qualify for the 2016 ballot, but will be running again in 2018. In the meantime, he is starting an organization called Floridians for Free and Fair Elections (FFFE) whose main concern will be getting money out of politics, but there is no reason why it could not also take a stand on electronic voting machines, and try to get a state Constitutional amendment that would ban those machines from the state of Florida. This is because in 2017 there will be a once in 20 year opportunity to get such an amendment without the need to get crazy amounts of signatures.

Thank you very much for your important work Mr. Charnin. It is greatly appreciated.

I want to share with you how I was taught to approach data like yours. My training is in the social sciences, where with human data points sampling procedure becomes very important. Since participation in exit polling is not mandatory the question quickly becomes how does the profile of those not participating in the surveys differ from those who answered the survey questions.

The statistical analysis of the exit polling you have performed reports a persistent and practically significant association between voting for Bernie and official reported vote counts, i.e. Bernie voters were exit polled at a higher rate than they show up in official figures. You have quite fairly posited that the association is a reflection of election fraud that is undercounting votes for Bernie in official figures. The other alternative that comes to mind is that Bernie voters are more likely to participate in exit polling than Hillary voters. (Of course attempting to explain such a difference would be yet another research question.)

The selection you cited from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) which discusses the matching process in “Explaining Exit Polls,” describing their practice of adjusting figures to accord with official vote counts overlooks the question of the integrity of the vote count, and instead addresses why did the Bernie voters make their decision to vote for Bernie, and the Hillary voters vote for Hillary. This matching process is a crude mechanism to make adjustments for the voters that chose not to participate in exit polling. It is standard practice in the social sciences for decisions about how to treat variations in data to be part of the investigative report. The assumptions made therein of course affect the quality of the investigators’ conclusion. And it is entirely appropriate for someone like you to come along and offer an alternative analysis.

To the extent that my analysis is on target it would thus not be fair to say that you have provided conclusive proof of voter fraud. Rather you have posited voter fraud as an alternative account of why more Bernie voters have participated in exit polling than Hillary voters in comparison to official vote counts. If you can identify any flaws in my reasoning I would be thankful for pointing them out.

Thanks again for your years of labor on this important matter. Cheers, Paul Frank

1 in billions or trillions odds against the exit poll discrepancies occurring by chance is proof to me of election fraud.
The proposition that Bernie voters are more likely to participate has no basis in fact.
That is a canard that never goes away. It cannot explain the discrepancies.
It was disproved in 2004. Remember the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) theory put forth by the exit pollsters to explain the 6.5% discrepancy?
That was proved false by the pollsters own data.

In a criminal trial, typically 1 in 100 odds is considered proof to convict.
That says it all.

Thank you very much for your response Mr. Charnin. I am very interested in what was “disproved in 2004”. (Any association of that strength is beyond practical question. That is not the issue.) Do you recall how the rBr “was proved false by the pollsters own data” ?

Thank you very much for the set of links. (I am sorry for the delayed response, but they did not show up as a reply.) They comprise what — to use USAID’s nomenclature from its guide on “Assessing and Verifying Election Results” (https://yali.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/01/Assessing-and-Verifying-Election-Results-Summary-Document.pdf) — is election forensics, that is an analysis of the patterns in the results looking for things that don’t make sense. (I think of it as comparing to a CPA combing through a business’s financial records.) The USAID guide takes exit polls by themselves as the weakest form of checking election results. Exit polling can be an important part of election forensics. I can tell you as a social scientist that that there is certainly no prima facie reason to suppose that voters for different candidates would not participate in exit polls at different rates.

In particular have started to work through the Baiman, Dodge, & Dopp article the best I can and find its focus on target, i.e., do the different response rates make sense. Being well outside of my area of expertise I have sought out peer review of the material. The best I have found at this point are some secondary sources reporting on academic criticisms of the work. While they have raised questions about the work, the comments are so general to not be clear that they are critiquing final, complete versions of the argument. If you are aware of reviews by competent observers I would be thankful if you passed them on.

Regardless, I thank you for indulging my ignorance and assisting my efforts to understand. Cheers, Paul

Reblogged this on Once Upon a Paradigm and commented:
Here is some more info on the discrepancies in the vote. Read it and get ready for a real eye opener that the RICO case is going to bring forth. Pass it on.